Downtown TRID

Requested more information and evidence that the downtown TRID will generate new tax revenue rather than capturing development that would happen anyway.

Argued against subsidizing developers, stating that rising market demand means developers will build without public bailouts.

Objected to the TRID as corporate welfare that shifts financial risk onto taxpayers while benefiting out-of-town investors.

Urged council to vote no, emphasizing that neighborhood infrastructure like pools and parks need investment rather than downtown.

Highlighted the displacement of long-time union service workers during commercial-to-residential conversions downtown.

Shared her emotional story of being laid off after 37 years as a union cleaner at the former Alcoa building.

Stressed the importance of protecting good union jobs and preventing union-busting tactics by incoming developers.

Expressed support for the TRID and UPMC EMS donations as valuable investments in transit and public safety.

Criticized the TRID as a developer-focused plan that ignores the needs of seniors, veterans, and the unhoused.

Called the TRID opaque and lacking public engagement, urging investment in social housing instead.

Expressed shock at the lack of community notification regarding the TRID and asked for funds to support youth and affordable housing.

Proposed investing tax revenues into community land trusts and co-op housing rather than downtown developers.

Questioned the legality of the TRID process and urged council to fund community needs instead of developers.

Compared the TRID to trickle-down economics, arguing it benefits wealthy investors while neighborhoods struggle with crumbling infrastructure.

Argued the TRID fails to meet state guidelines for transit improvements, dedicating 80% to private developers.

Urged council to reject the 40-year commitment to developers and invest directly in neighborhoods across the city.

Suggested council reconsider the TRID and focus investments on outlying neighborhoods and affordable housing.

Opposed the TRID, citing transit privatization failures and the need for public investment in working-class communities.

Advocated against tax subsidies for luxury developments and proposed student-owned housing co-ops in neighborhoods like Homewood.

Raised concerns about public debt guarantees and the impact on Pittsburgh Public Schools, urging a vote against the TRID.

Questioned council's priorities, asking why money is spent on downtown instead of bringing businesses to neighborhood main streets.

Criticized the TRID as a 40-year giveaway to developers that ties the hands of future city councils.

Expressed vehement opposition, citing the housing crisis and inaccessible sidewalks across Pittsburgh's 90 neighborhoods.

Questioned the fast-tracking of a $200 million handout to downtown developers amidst city budget crises.

Condemned the TRID as an abomination that forecloses neighborhood investments and burdens future generations with debt.

Warned that the TRID drains resources needed for health care, child care, transit, and school funding.

Used an accounting perspective to argue the TRID takes resources from foundational neighborhood needs to fund downtown luxuries.

Highlighted unsafe sidewalk conditions and lack of bus shelters in Spring Hill, contrasting them with downtown TRID spending.

Urged a 'no' vote, stating that taxpayers should not fund playgrounds for non-residents while disinvested communities struggle.

Demanded transparency and threatened political accountability at the ballot box for council members supporting the TRID.